Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. – John Kenneth Galbraith
This column’s title is that of an H.G. Wells short story about a man who stumbles into a remote Andean valley cut off from the world for centuries; he finds that the inhabitants suffer from a congenital disease which destroys their eyes, so that after fifteen generations they lack even the concept of sight. At first he believes the proverb which states, “In the country of the blind the one-eyed man is king,” but quickly discovers that the inhabitants simply refuse to accept what he describes to them and instead conclude that he is an imbecile. Dealing with trafficking fanatics is a lot like stumbling into the Country of the Blind; they have their own narrow and ignorant concept of sex work, and anyone who tells them the truth is treated as a fool, an idiot or a liar. But the metaphor breaks down on one important point; while Wells’ blind tribe cannot see and have absolutely no knowledge of the sense, those who believe in the dogma that all prostitution is degrading and that no woman would do it willingly are perfectly capable of opening their eyes. Wells’ villagers are hemmed in by cliffs on all sides, but prohibitionists have the whole world of information at their fingertips via the internet, yet choose to remain in darkness and viciously attack anyone who so much as describes the light.
On the evening of October 15th, a person calling himself “Kwontity” made the following comment on “Marching Up Their Own Arses”:
so, from what I gather from the article and from the comments (excluding the giggling posts about rectal maneuvers), you don’t believe in such things as “trafficking” or that women/girls required by their families to enter into prostitution are coerced into the field. How about when parents sell their daughters? Still perfectly ok?
I let the comment through, but since its biased viewpoint was obvious I altered the email address associated with it so as to subject any future comments to moderation. The tone of the post (especially the snarky question at the end) led me to the conclusion that nothing I said would change this person’s mind, but I recognized years ago that responses to this sort of internet comment are not for the benefit of the person to whom one replies, but rather for others who are genuinely looking for answers. Kwontity’s mind was clearly already made up, and it’s impossible to reason anyone out of a position he didn’t reason himself into. But there may be other, silent readers out there who may genuinely not understand why I and others oppose the trafficking hysteria, and who may sincerely want an answer. So for those people, I wrote the following response:
Like many people, you are pretending that sex magically makes everything different. Women whose families pressure them into prostitution are NO DIFFERENT from those who pressure them into any other kind of work, especially in countries like Switzerland and Hungary where prostitution is legal. If it’s “wrong” for a family to push a woman to do sex work, then it’s also “wrong” when she’s pushed to get an office job. So is the average American man a “human trafficker” in your mind? Because most men expect their wives to work nowadays.
Laura Agustín has pointed out that while men who cross borders to work are usually labeled “illegal immigrants”, women who do so are called “trafficked”; that’s why there is the dual fallacy that most illegal migrant workers are men and most “trafficking victims” are women. The truth is, they both cross the borders for the same reasons, but the paternalistic view of woman as helpless victim encourages women’s migration to be viewed as a separate phenomenon; this is exactly the same delusion which gave rise to the “white slavery” hysteria of 100 years ago. I suggest you read my columns of June 22nd, 25th and 29th and also Dr. Agustín’s blog, starting with this reprint of an article from the beginning of the current trafficking hysteria in 2001.
Does actual, bona fide slavery exist? Certainly, and it always has. But the numbers are not “growing”, as alarmists would have it; it is now a very small phenomenon. It’s just that sheltered middle-class white Westerners with silly beliefs about sex work and pie-in-the-sky notions of “fairness” refuse to understand that just because they can’t imagine themselves ever doing a certain job doesn’t mean it’s unthinkable for everyone, and in fact may be the best alternative. Do I consider slavery morally defensible? No, and I’ve spoken out against it in this blog many times. But it’s ludicrous for you to define all animals as “human” in your own mind and then call me a cannibal for eating a hamburger. I’m against real slavery (such as parents selling minor children), not against freely-chosen (if difficult) jobs that fanatics wrongfully define as slavery when in fact they’re nothing of the kind.
As I expected, Kwontity soon tried to post another comment, which I did not let through because, as I’ve said before, I reserve the right to exclude pugnacious individuals. Here it is, exactly as submitted:
It’s eerie the way you read my mind without my making a single opinion known! How do you know what i think? Are you able to read all peoples’ minds as you have mine? Let me test you: What am I, a man or a woman? What colour is/are my skin/hair/eyes? Where am I from? What is my age? My race? What Languages do I speak?
I asked a simple question and you used the opportunity to deliver some canned hash, a cut and pasted diatribe to thrill your vast readership, all but one dismissive half-sentence completely unrelated to what I asked. But Ad hominem attacks like what you and your tiny tribe seem to relish just reveal the attacker as a disingenuous charlatan. In fact, I doubt you even believe what you write since you certainly haven’t done any actual work to prove what you believe. The truth no doubt is that you’ve always felt you were outcast from society for your lifestyle and now you just want attention so you flail your arms and honk ferociously and pretend a counter-culture outrage that you merely are pulling out your arse. Since you obviously have no use for thought I’ll just wish you good day and you and your incestuous little group can masturbate each other in solitude, celebrating your moral victory over everyone who you feel has done you wrong.
This response makes it abundantly clear that he not only refused to consider anything I wrote, but apparently skimmed it rather than reading it. He refers to a direct response as “canned hash”, and to links to full columns as “cut and paste”; surely he cannot have imagined that I would totally rewrite information contained in four of my columns on demand in a comment for the benefit of an obviously-hostile stranger? And had I synopsized Dr. Agustín’s column rather than linking it, that would have been cut and paste. I’m not sure where he sees ad hominem in my attack (perhaps the first line, since it seems to have incensed him), nor how he can claim that only “half a sentence” was devoted to answering him, nor how the research which has gone into almost five hundred essays constitutes no “actual work to prove what [I] believe”. The only thing I can assume is that he thought to draw me into a grueling and unprofitable flame war, and was angry that I refused; that assumption is supported by this further attempt to bait me the next morning. For full effect, reread the first paragraph of his reply above (starting with “It’s eerie”) and then the comment below:
You cherry pick comments and allowed yourself the last word on my previous post, so this message is just for you, “Maggie”. I believe you were never a prostitute, that you are just a punter yourself. Your understanding on the psychology of coercion and manipulation is so minimal as to be laughable. Never heard of the Stockholm Syndrome, I suppose. Or is that, too, bollocks and a hostage can get to know and love his or her captor? Yours is the same reasoning self-serving, willfull ignorance of NAMBLA..
Projection really is an amazing psychological defense against cognitive dissonance. But I guess it’s easier to indulge in sleazy, sexist personal insults than to actually think or research (hints: several other bloggers have met me in person, I’ve appeared on internet radio shows and there’s a subject index on this blog which includes the term “Stockholm Syndrome”) before making an ass of oneself. Wise people exposed to proof that their preconceptions are wrong adjust their thinking, but fools expend that effort on rationalizing why their opponents cannot be right.
Since the “last word” seems important to you, Kwontity, please feel free to make one reply to this column (readers, I already informed him via email that this would appear today) and I promise I will not respond to it. I can’t and won’t stop my readers from replying to you, though, nor will you get more than one comment for reasons I’ve previously stated. I’ll stay completely out of the comment thread once you appear, except to answer direct factual questions from other posters. But consider this a warning: most members of my “incestuous little group” are both intelligent and well-informed, and if they aren’t afraid to contradict me (which I can assure you they aren’t), you may not like what they have to say about you.
One Year Ago Today
“Whores in the News” reports on labioplasty, Spanish streetwalkers, Charlie Sheen’s meltdown, the FBI raid on Escorts.com and two very different articles on “sex trafficking”, the second of which Kwontity really needs to read.
The bottom line is – if you have a case – the case proves itself.
Global Warming Alarmists – don’t have a case, otherwise the East Anglia scientists wouldn’t have been caught “hiding the decline”.
Trafficking Alarmists – don’t have a case. If they did they wouldn’t make the scope of the problem so broad. They include anyone who leaves a third world hell-hole to work in another nation for a wage that is considered relatively low by the host nation’s standards but very lucrative by the immigrant worker’s standards.
Child Soldiering – that’s included in the scope of the TIP problem. So African warlords recruit kids to fire AK-47’s for them. What do we do about that? Go to war to stop it? Let me know – I’d be willing to volunteer to do that because I get off on dropping “bad men” – but I don’t think most Americans do.
The middle east has this whole cast system going on. Go to Bahrain, or Dubai and you’ll find that the service workers there are NOT local. They come from Bangladesh and a lot of other poor nations. They live in squander – but their living conditions in their home nation are twentyfold worse. Liberals like “wealth distribution” – well, here you have it. Saudi and Bahraini corporations hire these third world service workers – pay them a wage – and some of that money goes back to their home nations to make things a bit easier for the people there.
But this isn’t considered a form or “free trade” or “wealth redistribution” – it’s considered human trafficking.
And then we get to the REAL root of everyone’s angst – the persons trafficked for SEXUAL services … (dun …. dun … dun – que Darth Vader music here) …
Let me tell you about a “trafficked” woman I know well … 😉
She’s from Russia. She’s university educated and smarter than I am by far. She has a degree in psychology and she helps women with emotional problems. She also “escorts” on the side. Part of this is to make more money – but hell, I think she enjoys and gets something out of it. Or maybe she has all this energy and wants to make as much money as possible so she can retire. Whatever – Anyway – she figures she can make a lot more money in Denmark than in Russia – so she first moves to Estonia – and then applies for residency in Denmark and moves there when she’s approved.
Where she does exactly what she’s doing in Russia – only for more money. She’s just trafficked herself! But wait – a rich guy in Italy buys her a ticket to come spend two weeks with him – so she flies down there, of course a bit of sex is involved – and by damn – she’s been trafficked again. She returns to Denmark, with a tan and and a wad of Euros. What a victim!
Look – my point is this. There’s plenty of idiots (like me) who are willing to go blow up bad guys to stop them from selling little Indian girls to the highest bidder. Make a case BASED ON THAT – and we can talk.
But when you come at this and include every CAPITALIST from the third world who moves around to make a buck in the scope of the problem – it tells me you don’t really have a case.
It amazes me – that the same people who accused GW. Bush of invading Iraq based on flimsy evidence of WMD’s – buy so completely into this TIP issue based on anecdotes, heart breaking stories, and so little real evidence.
$32 BILLION – that is what the United Nations claims is the per year value of human trafficking. Sorry man – but there is no way that the child sex trafficking industry worldwide is worth that much. THAT’S the problem.
And just to add one more thing Maggie – but, prolly the one thing your blog needs more of …
Is RED UMBRELLAS! 😉
😀
Seconded! 😀
Krulac, you’re right! I’ve just realized there were a few times when I “trafficked” myself!
I disagree with one thing:
Given, there’s been some bloating up of numbers by _some_ scientists regarding global warming, but also lots of proper evidence pointing towards it.
I will not argue that global warming is real, because it _could_ _possibly_ be a huge fraud by some scientists looking to make a name for themselves whistleblowing.
Still, investing in and furthering the spread if green technology does not hurt anyone and it doesn’t damage the environment (in some cases only: not as much)
In the case that global warning _IS_ happening, we will be very sorry for not fighting it’s causes.
If it _IS NOT_ happening, we won’t have lost anything.
This isn’t even a “better safe than sorry” thing (the “safe” part implying a harder, more stressfull way and cuts in our habits), but a “just be smart” thing…
You are ignoring the opportunity cost of putting resources into tackling a problem that doesn’t exist that could be put into problems that do exist and also the opportunity cost of tackling climate change if it’s not man-made because resources would be mistakenly put into prevention instead of mitigation. This is an insane way to make decisions.
Look back through history at all the opportunity costs from all previous scares and how much better life would have been if resources could have been used on real problems instead of these false alarms.
Please. When I was a child, in the 1960’s and 1970’s, global cooling was the bugaboo. The thing that affects global cooling and global warming is the sun, not man.
Oil and coal have been _provably_ more efficient stores of energy than wind or solar for decades. If wind and solar were a panacea, we’d already be using them and not subsidizing them with tax money.
No, global cooling were not the bugaboos, at least not among scientists. A bunch of scientists were asked if they thought the climate was changing, and most of them answered that there wasn’t enough data to give an answer. A smaller group said that the Earth might be warming, and an even smaller group than that said that the Earth might be cooling. The press thought that NEW ICE AGE made for better newspaper sales, so they ran with that.
Also, pointing out that forty or fifty years ago scientists thought a while now they think b is hardly evidence that b is false. Fields of science do advance over the decades.
I, personally, can not believe that the majority of the scientific community is engaged in a vast decades-long international conspiracy to make us think that global warming is real when they know that it isn’t. One government covering something up, like the Greenbriar Hotel bunker, is believable and in fact that’s exactly what happened. But a score of governments, universities, and independent researchers all working together, across nations and continents and oceans, all to foment the same hoax, for decades? Sorry, my suspension of disbelief fails.
If evidence and facts cannot be covered up, why is it that so many people buy the global sex trafficking hysteria, buy the lies and exaggeration? Why do recreational substance prohibition laws in most countries bear no resemblance to medical knowledge? For decades. By your arguments these falsehoods simply could not be perpetuated.
And yet they are.
Lies serve the politicians who want power, and excuses to exercise power. They cherry pick (and fund) the answers they want and push that, and trash anybody that says different. Even scientists.
I didn’t realize that the majority of physicians in multiple nations were all claiming that, for instance, marijuana is more harmful than cocaine. That this was being reported in peer-reviewed journals.
The DEA makes such claims, but the scientific community does not. Try another analogy.
You are correct this is a bad argument. Thanks for pointing out the flaw.
I think it’s wonderful (and I wish it were more common) that I can have a discussion with somebody who, though he disagrees with me, is able to say things like “You are correct this is a bad argument. Thanks for pointing out the flaw.” I’ll try to be as much a gentleman as you are being. Even if I think you’re wrong.
No, especially if I think you’re wrong. Your example will encourage me to behave. 🙂
Antonio and Sailor B, thank y’all SO much! Seeing interactions like this helps make the work of doing this blog even more rewarding. 🙂
Kwontity is someone who badly needs to learn this lesson (amongst others). I had a low opinion of his exchange with you as well. Others have already covered the criticisms I would make of his arguments perfectly well.
I’ll give you another example. Homeopathy is, to use the technical term, utter nonsense. This is not in dispute outside of the Homeopathic industry. That hasn’t stopped it being funded on the National Health Service by the UK Government even though it’s theoretically impossible (to the degree we would have to chuck out current understanding of physics, chemistry and biology text books) and clinical trials (when the homeopathy industry isn’t cherry picking) show that is no better than placebo.
This example shows what? Homeopathy is bunk, and the scientific community around the world is united on this. Just like the scientific community is united on anthropogenic climate change (to give “global warming is happening and people are causing at least some of it” its fancy name).
This example shows that governments will cherry pick the data they want and that bad scientific theories can endure, unlike my bad drug example there are scientists who claim that Homeopathy works and have their studies that they say demonstrate what they claim. The scientific community is not united on AGW.
Ah, this time I was the one who phrased something poorly. I guess that makes us even. 😉
I said that “the scientific community is united on anthropogenic climate change,” which would mean that there is no dissent at all. This is of course not the case, and I should choose my words more carefully.
I think that your homeopathy example is a good one, though. The worldwide scientific community is mostly agreed that homeopathy is bunk. You can find a few that will say that it works. Some of them may actually believe it, while others are willing to lend their status as scientists to whoever pays them to do so.* Only people who have reasons to believe in homeopathy aside from any scientific evidence take comfort from these bought-and-paid-for “scientific studies,” which usually aren’t in the regular peer-reviewed literature.
The worldwide scientific community is mostly agreed that AGW is real. You can find a few that will say that it works. You can find a few that will say that the Earth is not warming, or that it is but it’s because of sunspots, or whatever. Some of them may actually believe it, while others are willing to lend their status as scientists to whoever pays them to do so.** Only people who have reasons to doubt AGW aside from any scientific evidence take comfort from these bought-and-paid-for “scientific studies,” which usually aren’t in the regular peer-reviewed literature.
* This is a form of whoring much more immoral than anything Maggie ever did. The equivalent would be if Maggie had been paid by one man to convince another that she truly loved him, while giving him deliberately bad advice. I can easily respect an honest working girl, because I don’t think that sex is inherently evil. I do think that lying is inherently evil. There are cases when it may be justified, but it’s innately bad, and I don’t respect people who do it for money.
** See above footnote.
I don’t doubt that there are climate scientists of all persuasions who are influenced by money. Since the late 80’s the political funding, from governments and environmental NGO’s, for Pro AGW science has exploded and is worth billions of dollars a year. Former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher set up a pro AGW Climate unit for political not environmental reasons, indeed she denounced the environmentalists who opposed Nuclear Power Generation as “so called greens”.
She did this because she wanted to promote Nuclear Power Generation and used AGW as a way of attacking coal (untrustworthy miner’s unions) and oil (untrustworthy middle eastern politics) for energy security purposes. She enacted environmental taxes on fossil fuels, Nuclear Power Generation in the UK was (and still is) heavily subsidised, and she put in a place a requirement that a minimum percentage of electricity generation be zero/low carbon, all of which made Nuclear Power more attractive (and also wind/solar etc etc). She also gave many speeches at the National level to promote this, and made it “her issue” at the international level. That doesn’t make the science wrong, but it’s clear she was only interested in buying and promoting the answer she wanted, a pro AGW answer.
The scientific method is one of the great wonders of the world, but I trust scientists only up to a point, because I don’t have time to check their work, no person does, and one of the things that puts me in suspicion mode is when politics gets involved and is driving the interest much higher than it had been previously. Before politicians got involved, some AGW science existed but was largely ignored, even the environmental movement was making little headway before the politicians latched on.
Coincidentaly, I came across this just today – a speech titled “Scientific Heresy” on Climate Science given on the 31st October at the Royal Society of the Arts, Edinburgh.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/1/scientific-heresy.html
P.S. Yes I have an anti-government bias and I’m not going to apologise for it, but this may be clouding my judgement on this issue and I’ve been examining this. Whatever the truth turns out to be on this, Governments needs to get out of involving itself with this issue – along with everything else 8). I don’t care why people are not persuaded if a governments ends the argument by pulling out a gun and saying “we’re doing it my way whether you like it or not”. This is not scientific, this is not debate, and it’s not moral.
I have my own suspicions of government, whatever party happens to be in power (and right now it’s split). But I don’t trust oil and coal companies any more than I do government (a little less, actually).
Here’s something we might agree on: get some of the money out of elections (my favorite way is public funding of elections), and see if the science on AGW changes.
Let me start by stating the obvious: if global warming is real, and if people are causing it, and if this is a big problem, then we should do something about it.
OK, I followed the link and read it. Matt Ridley’s position is that global warming is happening and people are causing it, but not that much of it, and so we really shouldn’t worry, and we sure as hell shouldn’t try to do something about it.
Certain things he said bothered me more than others. The whole ‘I’m the brave heretic and they are the pseudoscientists’ thing is just basic sniping that doesn’t impress me; I’m sure his opponents would insist something similar, only with themselves cast as the good guys. No, what really got my goat was this:
“Your probability of dying as a result of a drought, a flood or a storm is 98% lower globally than it was in the 1920s.”
I believe that. And it has nothing to do with global warming one way or the other. We have better roads so that people can evacuate (roads built by government), we have modern plumbing and crop surpluses to help people ride these things out. These things help you survive droughts, floods, and storms better than the 1920s, whatever the truth turns out to be on AGW (which, again, Ridley says is real).
“Malaria has retreated not expanded as the world has warmed.”
Well duh. How many billions have been spent fighting malaria? Poisoning mosquitos? He might as well have said, “More people travel by air than in the 1920s.” Yeah? And?
Finally, why do people take the sides they do? If you’re the owner of a windmill factory, you have a direct financial reason to be a little sweet on how fossil fuels are a bad thing. And of course, if you’re a big oil exec, you have the exact same reason to be sweet on the idea that AGW is bunkity-bunk.
If your favorite politician is Al Gore, you are predisposed to think it’s real; if your favorite politician is Rick Perry, you are predisposed to think it’s bunk.
Largely, though, it tends to be accepted as real by people who aren’t bothered, or aren’t bothered much, by the prospect of doing something about it, and rejected by those who are mightily uncomfortable with the prospect of doing something about it.
“Something” would tend to involve regulations, limits on businesses, and the government being the solution instead of the problem.
Many are persuaded by the science, or at least by arguments about the science. But there’s a lot of confirmation bias on both sides.
None of this has anything to do with a concerted conspiracy on the part of multiple universities, governments, and independent researchers, all around the world, for decades.
The majority consensus of the scientific community is that AGW is real. Even Matt Ridley says so. I’m going with them. If, later, this turns out to be wrong, I can adapt. But for now, I’m going with the consensus view.
I’ve stayed out of this conversation so far, and this is the only thing I’m going to say on the subject. I am convinced by the evidence that the Earth is warming, and that humans have caused some of it; however, I think the present “let’s restrict everything” approach is pure bunk, moralism and Puritanism disguised as science. When your car is rolling down a hill out of control, it doesn’t matter how it got there or who caused that condition, and it’s too late to “slow down” and hope that will solve the problem. No, it’s time to apply the brakes, and if the brakes don’t work then you had better look like trying other solutions. And once the car stops, THEN you can try to figure out why it went out of control in the first place so it won’t happen again.
It’s too late to “slow the rate of global warming”; we need to figure out how to induce controlled global cooling to balance it. But the crypto-moralists don’t want that, because it involves an active solution rather than privation, belt-tightening, giving up and doing without.
I wouldn’t be against some geo-engineering to off-set global warming. We do need to be careful with it, though; we wouldn’t want to cause an ice age. Geo-engineering could involve such things as planting lots of trees (environmentalists will like that). It could also involve putting mirrored tiles on top of buildings, or covering large areas with white or even silvered fabric (they won’t like that so much).
The proposed solution of ‘just don’t use so much energy’ isn’t viable, because much of the world population already doesn’t use so much energy, and they suffer a correspondingly low standard of living because of it. I’m all for more energy-efficient cars and TVs and such, but increases in standard of living in the developing world will more than off-set it. And they are developing. It’s one thing if some countries enjoy a high standard of living while others do not, but to deliberately hold the poorer countries down so that we can continue our energy-intensive way of life is immoral. Throwing our own populations into poverty would also be immoral (for one thing, that leaves the poorer countries… poor).
We need new sources of energy, clean sources, abundant sources. That would remain true if we were to find out before Christmas that the planet was not getting warmer, or if that it is and there were proof positive and all agreed that people have nothing to do with it.
My favorite energy alternative is satellite solar power stations. Other sources of clean, abundant energy may be viable, such as fusion if anybody can make it work. Of course, I’d also like to see an end to oil mucking up international politics, but that’s a separate issue.
Fission is available right now and works just fine; Europe and India get much of their power that way. It was just made into an expensive, politically impossible nightmare by fanatics in the U.S.
I need to look into where they put the waste. That seems to be the biggest problem this side of the Atlantic.
You should have seen the reaction when I suggested nuclear cruise ships.
The “where do we put the waste?” argument is and always has been a straw man; it’s based on the general public’s ignorance of how little matter it takes to run a nuclear power plant. The total nuclear waste produced by all the reactors ever built since 1945 has less mass than that in one landfill of a moderately-sized U.S. city.
a) I’ve been in some landfills, and they’re pretty honking huge. This was in Oklahoma, and not even OKC or Tulsa.
b) If nuclear becomes our main source of energy, there will be an amount generated each year which may well compare to ten years at current levels. So there’s another landfill’s worth every seven years. Even every ten, and that’s a lot, considering
c) that some stuff it doesn’t take a whole lot of if it’s powerful stuff. To make an analogy: it isn’t unusual for me to take 6 to 9 mg of melatonin at night. Helps me get to sleep (sometimes). A man my size could probably get away with 12 mg, but I’m cautious about such things. 12 mg of mescaline wouldn’t be noticed by a small child, 12 mg of 2c-e would give a man my size a mild psychedelic experience, 12 mg of bromo-dragonfly might kill me, 12 mg of LSD could set 50 hippies tripping balls, but might not be enough to actually kill one person (opinions vary).
So, is nuclear waste more like melatonin, more like mescaline… or more like bromo-dragonfly?
You misunderstand; I mean the total waste produced by ALL reactors, in EVERY country, since the beginning, wouldn’t fill one landfill. Compare that with the tons of airborne pollutants produced by every single coal or oil-fired plant; it’s no comparison. Much is made of the length of time the stuff is radioactive, but the most stable isotope of common radium, which is nastily radioactive, has a half-life of 1600 years. The majority of hysteria about nuclear waste is about as rational as the hysteria about sex trafficking.
I know what you meant, and that’s what I meant. If nuclear becomes our main source of energy, we could well get into a situation where there is as much waste produced by all the (much larger number) nuclear reactors in the world every ten years as has been produced all the (much smaller number) nuclear reactors in the world so far. So that’s another landfill each decade. AND, you can’t just bury it like you do old tuna cans.
The little bit I’ve managed to look into the situation in Europe, they’re having trouble figuring out where to put it. However, I’ve also found that the problem has multiple solutions, some available now and others coming along.
Nuclear isn’t my favorite future power source, but I’m not opposed in general. Again, I’m the guy who suggested nuclear cruise ships.
I now know what to do with the waste. Liquid salt reactors. They’re amazing.
These are a type of nuclear reactor which can produce electricity and which uses as fuel… existing nuclear waste. You put existing nuclear waste into it, and you get out electricity and a smaller amount of less radioactive waste with a shorter half-life.
We should build these things even if we didn’t need the power, because it solves a big chunk of the waste problem. It also doesn’t produce weapons-grade anything.
Maybe they could power cruise ships.
But of COURSE child sex trafficing is worth $32 billion a year. That’s the LEAST that the drones in the UN hope to extract from well meaning fools by spinning horrible stories.
I realize that this is getting a bit off topic, but re: global warming:
1. There can be no honest doubt that the world has warmed a great deal over the last 100-150 years, that this warming is unusually fast compared to the long-term fluctuations in temperature, and that the Earth is getting warmer today.
The (oil-industry) Koch brothers funded a study by a self-described skeptic, Richard Muller, who reexamined all available data with a view toward discrediting the standard measurements of warming. He found that the usually-reported warming pattern was exactly in line with his data. Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/skeptics-own-study-finds-climate-change-real-but-says-scientists-should-be-more-critical/2011/10/30/gIQAphNkVM_story.html
2. There can be no honest doubt that carbon dioxide has an effect on the global temperature of the Earth. There CAN be honest doubt as to the magnitude of this effect and whether the recent human output is directly responsible for all or most of the recent warming.
Without getting too technical, the Earth is constantly receiving energy from the sun (which increases the temperature) and radiates it out into space (which decreases the temperature). If these two amounts are balanced, there won’t be a change in the temperature of the Earth over time.
The tricky part is this: the Earth radiates energy from the surface, but it is readsorbed and reemitted by the gasses in the atmosphere (nitrogen and oxygen, mostly, but also CO2). This has two effects. First, the energy emitted by the atmosphere goes both up and down, so some energy makes it back to Earth. Second, since the atmosphere is at a lower temperature than the Earth, it radiates less energy out to space than it receives from the Earth. Analogies to a “greenhouse” or “blanket” are made here, but they are not physically correct.
In short, the more stuff there is in the atmosphere to absorb and reemit the energy coming out of the Earth, the less of it actually makes it to space, and the warmer the Earth needs to be to keep things in balance. We have put extra CO2 in the atmosphere, and it turns out that CO2 is one of the more important gasses at absorbing and reemitting energy. The debatable point is the SIZE of the effect.
3. Economic arguments about the effect of eliminating fossil fuels, the adoption of green technology, and costs of mitigation efforts are not generally the subjects of studies by climate scientists.
Environmentalists may be using the (very real) threat of global warming to push an agenda that benefits them or that they would have promoted regardless of the science. But as far as the science goes, points 1 and 2 above hold extremely true. Disagreement with those two points is nearly impossible on scientific grounds; while science is always a continuing search for truth, there ample evidence that those two are true, and it would take an incredible experiment to overturn them.
Re global warming,
1. We are still in the middle of an Ice Age
2. The last intergalicial period (warmer era of an ice age where glaciers retreat twords the poles) was warm enough for hippos to migrate north in to the brithsh ilses and scandinavia
3. Whether or not humans can effect the weather on a global scale may be up for debate, but global warming wont kill the planet, at most it will kill a few hunndered thousand species mankind most likely among them
People who support the idea that man can effect global warnimg need to stop pushing the idea that the planet as a whole will die, it wont. It will survice with or with out us and people know that. Such claims of global destruction are counter productive because everyone knows they are crap.
1 – no, we aren’t – not unless you take the ‘ice age’ we’re in to mean a span of time going 4% of the way back to the dinosaurs, which is kind of uselessly long. And, apropos the next point, to include lots and lots of interglacial periods.
2 – Okay, so the previous interglacial period was much warmer than things are now – so what? Absolute temperature isn’t the problem – it’s the rate of change. Slow-moving animals and plants are being outrun by their temperature bands. They still have habitat, but it’s running away from them! Never has the temperature changed this quickly… except during mass-extinction events based on rapid temperature change.
3 – the existence of hyperbole is not a counterargument – and if you think this will wipe out mankind (which I don’t), I don’t see how this means GW is nothing to worry about! Seriously…
>>Global Warming Alarmists – don’t have a case, otherwise the East Anglia scientists wouldn’t have been caught “hiding the decline”.>>
To those Pacific Islanders whose islands are sinking into the sea, global warming is very real indeed. But I guess they don’t count, do they?
When Lower Manhattan starts sinking, well then maybe denial will be more than a river in Egypt.
wells story reminds me of platos allegory of the cave,where prisoners are held immobile since childhood,there is a fire behind them,people carrying stuff in front of the fire, which creates shadows , projected in a wall in front of the prisoners.people think that the shadows they see are exactly how theese things are and if sb tries to set them free and show them the truth they are going to attack them.this story is suitable as well as far trafficking fanatics are concerned.however,i dont agree that coercion from families into prostitution are the same as coercion into any other job,some people dont see sex the same way as you or many other people do and may feel violated if they feel they have to be in a job,in which they have to have sex out of nessecity.i saw a former streetwalker in a blog arguing that her mental illness pushed her to do sex work and she felt raped because she thought that she had to have sex with the clients, in order to survive.now she equates sex out of nessecity with rape.so,i think that coercion from family members is definitely wrong and people who cant handle sex work because its damaging for them need to follow programmes that will help them to exit.
I think people who can’t handle ANY kind of job, whether they were “coerced” into it or just needed to work as we all do, need to exit those professions as soon as they can.
>i dont agree that coercion from families into prostitution are the same as coercion into any other job,some people dont see sex the same way as you or many other people do and may feel violated if they feel they have to be in a job,in which they have to have sex out of nessecity
I think to do well in sex work you quickly have to move beyond all the romantic ideas of sex. Yes, sex can be romantic and special- But once you’re in the profession, what you do there is your job. You need to do it well, make the customer happy. If you can’t make that mental adjustment, then you don’t belong in the business.
>i saw a former streetwalker in a blog arguing that her mental illness pushed her to do sex work and she felt raped because she thought that she had to have sex with the clients, in order to survive.
Really? Was she so mentally ill that she could do no other work? And even at the street walking level, quite a bit of organization, people skills, and common sense are needed. We all make our choices as to what we can do. I hate flying. I would feel awful if I had to be a flight attendant. Lucky for me no one’s ever forced me into being one. I’m much more comfortable being a whore than a flight attendant. That’s my choice. The problem isn’t that choice, it’s all the crap society heaps on me for making it.
I’ve always thought part of the problem was too many people doing sex work who shouldn’t be, who weren’t suited to it. I’ve met a number of them. They usually make very bad whores, and complain loud and long after.
I’ve always compared sex work to cooking. I can cook competently for anyone, but it isn’t the same as making one of my husband’s favorites just for us, and seeing how much he enjoys it, and hearing him rave about it afterward. 🙂
Nice touch Maggie. Men really appreciate a well cooked meal…no matter WHO cooks it. We know cooking good food takes time and attention. And THAT is what we appreciate.
Have you ever noticed a common theme running through most of the (non-extreme) male fantasies and minor fetishes? Nurse or maid costumes, school-teacher, domination-type games or themes (almost always Male>female). Mother or older-sister archetypes…
Someone who takes care of us; our well-being, our lifestyles, our various needs; someone nurtures us, or treats us with an uncommon amount of respect. Granted it’s not the same ALL across the board, but most of the more common male fantasies can me characterized by the desire for such a nurturer and caretaker in our lives.
You could sum it up even tighter as “A woman who treats us with dedicated kindness”.
The fantasies are fantasies because of a near-total absence of women of that description in men’s normal day-to-day lives. In these days of dual-income families paying child-care services to effectively raise their children for them, it’s growing increasingly rare for even one’s own mother to put many daily hours into that kind of role (and after adulthood, even less if any).
So, is it any wonder a modern man might be willing to pay a woman to show him kindness for an hour?
God bless the whores. They are our new (or not-so-new) saints and saviors!
(I feel like I went off on a rant and forgot what I was responding to… oh well. It’s off my chest now. :P)
If you’re going to invoke blessings on us, please feel free to rant. 😉
“i saw a former streetwalker in a blog arguing that her mental illness pushed her to do sex work and she felt raped because she thought that she had to have sex with the clients, in order to survive.now she equates sex out of nessecity with rape.so”
Who was she raped by? The clients? The clients who saw her ad that she posted, or who responded to her in-person “advertisment” on the street, with whom she agreed to ave sex? She got into their cars with the clear understanding that money was to be exchanged for sex, had sex with them (often just a blowjob) – that was rape? A woman blows a man for payment, and that’s him raping her?
Maybe there’s a distinction between “felt raped” and “actually was raped”. Or maybe it’s just that this person simply doesn’t know what actually being raped feels like, and made an understandable mistake.
So, you’re lying about having been a prostitute. And you don’t realize you were trafficked because you’ve been brainwashed through Stockholm syndrome…wait, what?
I think what he’s claiming is that since I don’t claim most prostitutes are coerced, I must be lying because he KNOWS FOR A FACT we are. His accusation that I am a “punter” (the British equivalent of “hobbyist”, i.e. a man who sees prostitutes often) derives from this same absolute certainty that most whores are trafficking victims; presumably, he imagines his imaginary punter is so guilt-ridden at all the “trafficked girls” he has “bought” that he has developed an elaborate deception to hide the “truth” from himself and others. Considering the number of hours I put into this blog, one has to wonder when such a man would have time to see hookers…or to work a job to pay for it all.
There’s also more than a hint of male chauvinism there; since “everybody knows” women all think alike, and are far too stupid to write coherently, clearly all eloquent female bloggers (especially those who write about anything other than cooking, their kids or fashion) must really be male.
When I was in the Navy I came across quite a few “volunteers” who didn’t seem to be that “into” being a Sailor. When I asked them why the hell they joined the Navy in the first place? I found many who told me they enlisted as a part of “plea agreement” with a judge or a prosecutor. In other words – join the military – charges dropped.
I wonder if the UN includes those guy in their TIP numbers because – by definition – they were coerced into joining the military to become “bullet catchers”.
“Grown men should not be having sex with prostitutes unless they are married to them.”
“incestuous little group”
Golly, Maggie, I didn’t realize you were my sister!
Or is QuanTitty alleging that the incest is confined to the group itself?
Gosh, Sailor! I didn’t know you were my brother!
Oh great, now I’m related to giant prehistoric predators and egg-laying mammals.
Actually, that sounds pretty cool! 😀
;-()
Although QuonTitty probably thinks that egg-laying is a sex act.
He also accused us of group masturbation.
The urge to reply “well, we’re having a damn sight more fun than you are, boyo” seems overwhelming.
😎
The endless problem with Crusades is that they swallow up both silly season swill and serious problems, make it hard to impossible to tell the difference, and turn lots of people into True Believers who spout the TRUTH without thinking about it. Examples;
I had a rabid anti-smoker tell me “You don’t like the taste of cigars smoke, you just think you do.” Not too surprisingly, he couldn’t explain what the difference was.
“Violence never solves anything.” What? On what planet would this be true? Now, I’m willing to accept as a reasonable position that violence tends to produce bad solutions (although I disagree with it), but that’s a very different statement. What never solves anything? Pious handwringing.
When you get right down to it, Crusades (even those that started out as reasonable concerns, such as certain Environmental Causes) are he natural habitat of deeply inconsequential people who use the Cause as an excuse to push people around, and wrap themselves in sanctimony to escape the beatings they so richly deserve.
Sadly, the last such to really get what he deserved was probably John Brown, as nasty and murderous a fanatic as ever attached himself to a good cause.
*spit*
Maggie:
“Projection really is an amazing psychological defense against cognitive dissonance.”
———————
No kidding. You can literally read him accuse you of doing EXACTLY what he`s doing within his own posts, but he can`t see it. It`s bizarre!
I used to share an apartment with a guy like this. He was introduced to me (by his girlfriend; he never initiated a conversation and rarely responded when I did) as “a private person”. I took this to mean he was a bit introverted and like spending time by himself, which I was fine with. I soon learned it was more like he was “a private person” by popular demand of everyone else. How he managed to hold a job I haven`t the slightest idea, but I had to move before I began seriously doubting my OWN sanity.
There`s a fairly old and insightful truism which goes: “Never argue with an idiot; they drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience.”
I could debate being “beaten” all night, but it would serve no purpose; I learned exactly what this phrase meant by it.
Arguments would go like this: He would charge up to me, all in a huff, blast out something that made absolutely NO rational sense, and then storm away again in righteous victory.
From my side of it, my mental processes were something like: “What did he just say? That didn`t sound like it made any sense, but why would he bother saying something completely nonsensical to me, and with such total conviction? Let me run his words by my brain a second time in case I missed something… … … … … … Nope, I was right the first time; that made absolutely zero sense.”
Of course, by this point, I`d been standing there with my mouth ajar puzzling over his words so long he was long gone, likely feeling completely vindicated having “told me” and “won” our one-sided “argument”.
I`ve always been a very rational, logically oriented person insofar as how I think and make decisions. Having to wrap my head around the glaring evidence that people this out of touch with any sort of rational thinking exist outside a mental institution really shook up my perceived understanding of the world and how it functions (or completely fails to).
(sigh)
Well, I guess if this “Kwontity” fellow happens to read this, I can TRY to reassure him this post is just me relating a similar experience to Maggie, and not intended as a personal attack of any sort (1). Just ignore it and make your response to Maggie herself. I may or may not decide to refrain from employing logic to tear your argument into itty bitty shreds. Get offended by THAT if it happens. (Alternatively, you could endevour to make sense, in which case I would be unable to do anything against you but choose to politely disagree.)
Remember, in all recognized professional forms of debate, personal attacks immediately discredits oneself, and reveals one as a person with no confidence he/she can win the debate with rational arguments. It`s admitting that you know you aren`t winning the discussion.
While on the subject of proper debate, there are some verbal tactics that are so transparently coercive they immediately reveal a lack of understanding what a logical or rational exchange of ideas IS. Common among these tactics is the presumptive projection of understanding (“You know I`m right about this, just own up and admit to it!”) This sort of underhanded verbal tactic only works on the very weak-willed sorts, or those with very little conviction in their own position; who are still undecided one way or the other. It would never work against someone like Maggie, or anyone else who can immediately recognize it as an weak attempt at verbal bullying.
There`s two free tips. Go write your reply now.
(Oh, I wrote almost a whole essay again. My bad. :P)
(1) Unless of course you happen to BE the T.J. from Southern Ontario who used to rent rooms above a physiotherapy clinic with me, whom Kwontity so reminds me of. If you are the same guy, I say entirely without sarcasm you should seek serious psychological analysis and help.
What’s important in this post is not your casual, efficient and entirely expected total savaging of a hapless troll, but rather a rare occurrence of that taunting red umbrella…
Taking a more critical gander at this notorious tease of a picture, I infer you could do with a little more in the ass department, but other than that definitely uncertain and decidedly minor quibble, I’d have to say you were doing more than alright. Of course to really properly evaluate your charms we require first a full-face, full-frontal yellow umbrella staring us down and then, looking back with an exaggeratedly coy gaze, beneath a bright pink umbrella, a slight lordosis of your spine to highlight any possible and delicious dimples that would, one feels, in the end, more than compensate for the surely pleasing but still perhaps less than perfect derrière we currently, and sadly, can only speculate upon.
IOW, ASS or GTFO. 😉
I have often been told, including by my photographer friend, that I have a “perfect arse” (whatever that means); this picture really doesn’t show it, and IMHO it’s a bit small for men who like them big and round. 😉
Somebody had to post this. So I did.
We can masturbate each other in solitude? I didn’t know we did that here! That sounds like fun!
You know, that just occurred to me; how can group sex be conducted in solitude? 😀
Uh, it’s a metaphysical thing. You see, we all connect in the great catholic web of being. Or maybe it’s the Force. Perhaps the Collective Unconscious. So any sex is group sex. Even solitary sex. Excuse me now. I have to attend a solitary orgy…
It’s like being “alone together”.
Prohibitionists do what they can to win; truth simply does not matter to them.
In Spain, having long since lost the argument on body autonomy and “exploitation” (particularly difficult to assert in a country with a decriminalized and tax-free regime for prostitution), they push lots of wild claims of sex slavery and “mafias”.
Trafficking mania is their only chance to make an impression on public opinion.
So, all this time I’ve been posting here has just really been a family reunion? I like y’all and everything but…. 😛 And an incestuous one at that! We must be House Targaryen.
Kwontity reminds me of the type of “client” (really, they’re just annoyances who will never actually book) who asks question after question or just emails you with a combination of personal attacks and non-sequiturs because they get off on that crap. Dude, there are plenty of professionals that can offer that service too but yes, you have to pay for it.
And what’s with the dull verbal dart he attempts to lob at you, Maggie, about you having the last word? Of course you will, it is your blog after all. What an ass. And the way he flip-flops on the size of your readership, he can’t decide whether or not you’re a threat to his tortured reasoning. On the one hand, we’re your “vast readership” but on the other hand, “your incestuous little group”. I think Kwnotity needs to replace his thesaurus that says vast and little are synonyms.
LOL! I did warn him that he wasn’t going to like what y’all had to say about him! 😀
That’s the first time I’ve seen that umbrella pic, and you were so right – your surgeon did an absolutely amazing job on your breasteseses! If I ever decide to go that route, I hope you’ll give up his or her name 🙂
Thank you, Kristen! If you’re in New Orleans or willing to travel there, I’ll most certainly refer you to him! 🙂
“Kwontity,” eh? Clearly he’s trying to make us choose between Kwontity and Kwawlity.
Not a tough choice. Even for a man.